To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Memorandum in support of complaint of Kelly Alexander, Jr. folder [black]

2760
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
ty group have been denied access to that
process;
"5. the extent to which members of the
minority group in the state or political
subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their
ability to participate effectively in the
political process;
"6. whether political campaigns have
been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;
"7. the extent to which members of the
minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
"Additional factors that in some cases
have had probative value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to establish a violation
are:
"whether there is a significant lack of
responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the
members of the minority group,
"whether the policy underlying the state
or political subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting,
or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous." S.Rep. 28-29, U.S.Code Cong. &
Admin.News 1982, pp. 206-207.
The District Court applied the "totality
of the circumstances" test set forth in
§ 2(b) to appellees' statutory claim, and,
relying principally on the factors outlined
in the Senate Report, held that the redistricting scheme violated § 2 because it resulted in the dilution of black citizens'
votes in all seven disputed districts. In
5. Bullet (single-shot) voting has been described
as follows:
"'Consider [a] town of 600 whites and 400
blacks with an at-large election to choose four
council members. Each voter is able to cast
four votes. Suppose there are eight white candidates, with the votes of the whites split among
them approximately equally, and one black candidate, with all the blacks voting for him and no
one else. The result is that each white candidate receives about 300 votes and the black
candidate receives 400 votes. The black has
probably won a seat. This technique is called
single-shot voting. Single-shot voting enables a
minority group to win some at-large seats if it
light of this conclusion, the court did not
reach appellees' constitutional claims.
Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F.Supp. 345
(EDNC 1984).
Preliminarily, the court found that black
citizens constituted a distinct population
and registered-voter minority in each challenged district. The court noted that at the
time the multimember districts were created, there were concentrations of black
citizens within the boundaries of each that
were sufficiently large and contiguous to
constitute effective voting majorities in single-member districts lying wholly within
the boundaries of the multimember districts. With respect to the challenged single-member district, Senate District No. 2,
the court also found that there existed a
concentration of black citizens within its
boundaries and within those of adjoining
Senate District No. 6 that was sufficient in
numbers and in contiguity to constitute an
effective voting majority in a single-member district. The District Court then proceeded to find that the following circumstances combined with the multimember
districting scheme to result in the dilution
of black citizens' votes.
First, the court found that North Carolina had officially discriminated against its
black citizens with respect to their exercise
of the voting franchise from approximately
1900 to 1970 by employing at different
times a poll tax, a literacy test, a prohibition against bullet (single-shot) voting5 and
designated seat plans6 for multimember
districts. The court observed that even
after the removal of direct barriers to black
concentrates its vote behind a limited number
of candidates and if the vote of the majority is
divided among a number of candidates.'" City
of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 184, n.
19, 100 S.Ct. 1548, 1565, n. 19, 64 L.Ed.2d 119
(1980), quoting U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years After,
pp. 206-207 (1975).
6. Designated (or numbered) seat schemes require a candidate for election in multimember
districts to run for specific seats, and can, under
certain circumstances, frustrate bullet voting.
See, e.g., City of Rome, supra, at 185, n. 21, 100
S.Ct., at 1566. n. 21.

J. Murrey Atkins Library Special Collections (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

Digital Publisher

J. Murrey Atkins Library Special Collections (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

Rights

These materials are made available for use in research, teaching and private study. The digital reproductions have been made available through an evaluation of public domain status, permissions from the rights' holders, and authorization under the law including fair use as codified in 17 U.S.C. section 107. Although these materials are publicly accessible for these limited purposes, they may not all be in the public domain. Users are responsible for determining if permission for re-use is necessary and for obtaining such permission. Individuals who have concerns about online access to specific content should contact J. Murrey Atkins Library.

Location of Original

J. Murrey Atkins Library Special Collections (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

Grant Information

Digitization made possible by funding from the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by the State Library of North Carolina, a division of the Department of Cultural Resources.

2760
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
ty group have been denied access to that
process;
"5. the extent to which members of the
minority group in the state or political
subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their
ability to participate effectively in the
political process;
"6. whether political campaigns have
been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;
"7. the extent to which members of the
minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
"Additional factors that in some cases
have had probative value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to establish a violation
are:
"whether there is a significant lack of
responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the
members of the minority group,
"whether the policy underlying the state
or political subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting,
or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous." S.Rep. 28-29, U.S.Code Cong. &
Admin.News 1982, pp. 206-207.
The District Court applied the "totality
of the circumstances" test set forth in
§ 2(b) to appellees' statutory claim, and,
relying principally on the factors outlined
in the Senate Report, held that the redistricting scheme violated § 2 because it resulted in the dilution of black citizens'
votes in all seven disputed districts. In
5. Bullet (single-shot) voting has been described
as follows:
"'Consider [a] town of 600 whites and 400
blacks with an at-large election to choose four
council members. Each voter is able to cast
four votes. Suppose there are eight white candidates, with the votes of the whites split among
them approximately equally, and one black candidate, with all the blacks voting for him and no
one else. The result is that each white candidate receives about 300 votes and the black
candidate receives 400 votes. The black has
probably won a seat. This technique is called
single-shot voting. Single-shot voting enables a
minority group to win some at-large seats if it
light of this conclusion, the court did not
reach appellees' constitutional claims.
Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F.Supp. 345
(EDNC 1984).
Preliminarily, the court found that black
citizens constituted a distinct population
and registered-voter minority in each challenged district. The court noted that at the
time the multimember districts were created, there were concentrations of black
citizens within the boundaries of each that
were sufficiently large and contiguous to
constitute effective voting majorities in single-member districts lying wholly within
the boundaries of the multimember districts. With respect to the challenged single-member district, Senate District No. 2,
the court also found that there existed a
concentration of black citizens within its
boundaries and within those of adjoining
Senate District No. 6 that was sufficient in
numbers and in contiguity to constitute an
effective voting majority in a single-member district. The District Court then proceeded to find that the following circumstances combined with the multimember
districting scheme to result in the dilution
of black citizens' votes.
First, the court found that North Carolina had officially discriminated against its
black citizens with respect to their exercise
of the voting franchise from approximately
1900 to 1970 by employing at different
times a poll tax, a literacy test, a prohibition against bullet (single-shot) voting5 and
designated seat plans6 for multimember
districts. The court observed that even
after the removal of direct barriers to black
concentrates its vote behind a limited number
of candidates and if the vote of the majority is
divided among a number of candidates.'" City
of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 184, n.
19, 100 S.Ct. 1548, 1565, n. 19, 64 L.Ed.2d 119
(1980), quoting U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years After,
pp. 206-207 (1975).
6. Designated (or numbered) seat schemes require a candidate for election in multimember
districts to run for specific seats, and can, under
certain circumstances, frustrate bullet voting.
See, e.g., City of Rome, supra, at 185, n. 21, 100
S.Ct., at 1566. n. 21.